tbuckley/cabot-search huggingface dataset:
Effect of Problem-solving Treatment on Self-reported Disability Among Veterans With Gulf War Illness
Authors: Lisa M. McAndrew, Karen S. Quigley, Shou-En Lu, David Litke, Joseph F. Rath, Gudrun Lange, Susan L. Santos, Nicole Anastasides, Beth Ann Petrakis, Lauren Greenberg, Drew A. Helmer, Wilfred R. Pigeon
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2022)

Importance Few evidence-based treatments are available for Gulf War illness (GWI). Behavioral treatments that target factors known to maintain the disability from GWI, such as problem-solving impairment, may be beneficial. Problem-solving treatment (PST) targets problem-solving impairment and is an evidence-based treatment for other conditions. Objective To examine the efficacy of PST to reduce disability, problem-solving impairment, and physical symptoms in GWI. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in the US Department of Veterans Affairs compared PST with health education in a volunteer sample of 511 Gulf War veterans with GWI and disability (January 1, 2015, to September 1, 2019); outcomes were assessed at 12 weeks and 6 months. Statistical analysis was conducted between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Interventions Problem-solving treatment taught skills to improve problem-solving. Health education provided didactic health information. Both were delivered by telephone weekly for 12 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was reduction from baseline to 12 weeks in self-report of disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule). Secondary outcomes were reductions in self-report of problem-solving impairment and objective problem-solving. Exploratory outcomes were reductions in pain, pain disability, and fatigue. Results A total of 268 veterans (mean [SD] age, 52.9 [7.3] years; 88.4% male; 66.8% White) were randomized to PST (n = 135) or health education (n = 133). Most participants completed all 12 sessions of PST (114 of 135 [84.4%]) and health education (120 of 133 [90.2%]). No difference was found between groups in reductions in disability at the end of treatment. Results suggested that PST reduced problem-solving impairment (moderate effect, 0.42; P = .01) and disability at 6 months (moderate effect, 0.39; P = .06) compared with health education. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of the efficacy of PST for GWI, no difference was found between groups in reduction in disability at 12 weeks. Problem-solving treatment had high adherence and reduced problem-solving impairment and potentially reduced disability at 6 months compared with health education. These findings should be confirmed in future studies. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02161133
Melanoma Treatments and Mortality Rate Trends in the US, 1975 to 2019
Authors: Navkirat Kahlon, Sishir Doddi, Rame Yousif, Sana Najib, Taha Sheikh, Ziad Abuhelwa, Cameron Burmeister, Danae M. Hamouda
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2022)

Melanoma accounts for most of the deaths due to skin cancer. In the past decade, effective US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies for melanoma have emerged.To review changes in the long-term melanoma mortality rate (MMR) trends in the US and determine whether they have any temporal association with the FDA approval of new agents.This cross-sectional study used population data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and retrospectively reviewed the age-adjusted MMR trends in adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 1975 to 2019 in the US population. The timeline of the FDA approvals for melanoma treatment was also reviewed. Data were analyzed from March 15 to August 15, 2022.Outcomes were assessed in association with FDA approval of drugs for the treatment of melanoma.Mortality rates are from the SEER database, reported per 100 000 population and age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. The annual percent change (APC) has been used to report long-term trends.After the introduction of newer treatments in 2011 (most after 2013), a significant reduction in MMR was seen from 2013 to 2017 in the US for the first time in the past 40 years. Rates increased from 1975 to 1988 (APC, 1.65% [95% CI, 1.30%-2.00%]; P < .001). No statistically significant change in MMR was seen from 1988 to 2013 (APC, 0.01% [95% CI, -1.10% to 0.12%]; P = .85). The MMR decreased significantly from 2013 to 2017 (APC, -6.28% [95% CI, -8.52% to -3.97%]; P < .001).These findings suggest a benefit associated with the availability of effective therapies in the past decade and further suggest that the use of new pharmacological therapies is associated with decreased MMR in the US population. These data are very encouraging and support the continued development of such therapies. Additionally, the accessibility of these treatments and the associated health care costs need to be addressed.
Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes
Authors: Amelia M. Bond, William L. Schpero, Lawrence P. Casalino, Manyao Zhang, Dhruv Khullar
Journal: JAMA (2022)

The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide.To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures.Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019.MIPS score.The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure.The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes.Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.
SARS-CoV-2 Reduction in Shared Indoor Air—Reply
Authors: Deborah Dowell, William G. Lindsley, John T. Brooks
Journal: JAMA (2022)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
SARS-CoV-2 Reduction in Shared Indoor Air
Authors: Devabhaktuni Srikrishna, Abraar Karan, Ranu S. Dhillon
Journal: JAMA (2022)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Short Life Expectancy No Deterrent to Cancer Screening for Some Physicians
Authors: Anita Slomski
Journal: JAMA (2022)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Association Between COVID-19 Booster Vaccination and Omicron Infection in a Cohort of Players and Staff in the National Basketball Association—Reply
Authors: Christina D. Mack, Deverick J. Anderson, John DiFiori
Journal: JAMA (2022)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 2—research priorities on conditions affecting the young person’s hip
Authors: H Paul Dijkstra, Sean Mc Auliffe, Clare L Ardern, Joanne L Kemp, Andrea Britt Mosler, Amy Price, Paul Blazey, Dawn Richards, Abdulaziz Farooq, Andreas Serner, Eugene McNally, Vasco Mascarenhas, Richard W Willy, Jason L Oke, Karim M Khan, Sion Glyn-Jones, Mike Clarke, Trisha Greenhalgh
Journal: British Journal of Sports Medicine (2022)

Introduction Primary cam morphology is highly prevalent in many athlete populations, causing debilitating hip osteoarthritis in some. Existing research is mired in confusion partly because stakeholders have not agreed on key primary cam morphology elements or a prioritised research agenda. We aimed to inform a more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based approach to research on primary cam morphology and its natural history by working towards agreement on a set of research priorities for conditions affecting the young person’s hip. Methods An international expert panel—the Young Athlete’s Hip Research (YAHiR) Collaborative—rated research priority statements through an online two-round Delphi exercise and met online to explore areas of tension and dissent. Panellists ranked the prioritised research statements according to the Essential National Health Research (ENHR) ranking strategy. Reporting of results followed REPRISE (REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health). Results A diverse Delphi panel (n=65, Delphi rounds 1 and 2; three ENHR strategy surveys: n=49; n=44; n=42) from 18 countries representing six stakeholder groups, prioritised and ranked 18 of 38 research priority statements. The prioritised statements outlined seven research domains: (1) best practice physiotherapy, (2) rehabilitation progression and return to sport, (3) exercise intervention and load management, (4) primary cam morphology prognosis and aetiology, (5) femoroacetabular impingement syndrome prognosis and aetiology, (6) diagnostic criteria, and (7) screening. The panel recommended areas of tension and dissent for the research community to focus on immediately. Conclusion While informing more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based research, this consensus is a roadmap for researchers, policy-makers and funders to implement research dedicated to reducing the cost and burden of hip disease related to primary cam morphology.
Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus EXTREME Regimen as First-Line Treatment for Recurrent/Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Final Results of CheckMate 651
Authors: Robert I. Haddad, Kevin Harrington, Makoto Tahara, Robert L. Ferris, Maura Gillison, Jerome Fayette, Amaury Daste, Piotr Koralewski, Bogdan Zurawski, Miren Taberna, Nabil F. Saba, Milena Mak, Andrzej Kawecki, Gustavo Girotto, Miguel Angel Alvarez Avitia, Caroline Even, Joaquin Gabriel Reinoso Toledo, Alexander Guminski, Urs Müller-Richter, Naomi Kiyota, Mustimbo Roberts, Tariq Aziz Khan, Karen Miller-Moslin, Li Wei, Athanassios Argiris
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

CheckMate 651 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02741570) evaluated first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cetuximab plus cisplatin/carboplatin plus fluorouracil ≤ six cycles, then cetuximab maintenance) in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN).
Integrating Tobacco Treatment Into Oncology Care: Reach and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Across National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers
Authors: Sarah D. Hohl, Richard S. Matulewicz, Ramzi G. Salloum, Jamie S. Ostroff, Timothy B. Baker, Robert Schnoll, Graham Warren, Steven L. Bernstein, Mara Minion, Katie Lenhoff, Neely Dahl, Hee Soon Juon, Ursula Tsosie, Linda Fleisher, Heather D'Angelo, Alex T. Ramsey, Kimlin T. Ashing, Betsy Rolland, Margaret B. Nolan, Jennifer E. Bird, Claire V.T. Nguyen, Danielle Pauk, Robert T. Adsit, Hilary A. Tindle, Kimberly Shoenbill, Sophia Yeung, Cary A. Presant, Kara P. Wiseman, Kuang-Yi Wen, Lou-Anne Chichester, Li-Shiun Chen
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

Quitting smoking improves patients' clinical outcomes, yet smoking is not commonly addressed as part of cancer care. The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) supports National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to integrate tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) into routine cancer care. C3I centers vary in size, implementation strategies used, and treatment approaches. We examined associations of these contextual factors with treatment reach and smoking cessation effectiveness.
Impact of Geriatric Assessment and Management on Quality of Life, Unplanned Hospitalizations, Toxicity, and Survival for Older Adults With Cancer: The Randomized 5C Trial
Authors: Martine Puts, Naser Alqurini, Fay Strohschein, Rama Koneru, Ewa Szumacher, Caroline Mariano, Johanne Monette, Tina Hsu, Sarah Brennenstuhl, Bianca McLean, Aria Wills, Arielle Berger, Eitan Amir, Lindy Romanovsky, Anson Li, Rajin Mehta, Monika Krzyzanowska, Christine Elser, Raymond Jang, Anca Prica, Doreen Wan-Chow-Wah, Eric Pitters, Urban Emmenegger, Ines B. Menjak, Simon Bergman, Manon Lemonde, Henriette Breunis, Francois Béland, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

PURPOSE American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends that older adults with cancer being considered for chemotherapy receive geriatric assessment (GA) and management (GAM), but few randomized controlled trials have examined its impact on quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS The 5C study was a two-group parallel 1:1 single-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial of GAM for 6 months versus usual oncologic care. Eligible patients were age 70+ years, diagnosed with a solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma, referred for first-/second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy or targeted therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary outcome QOL was measured with the global health scale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire and analyzed with a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 6 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes included functional status, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity; health care use; satisfaction; cancer treatment plan modification; and overall survival. RESULTS From March 2018 to March 2020, 350 participants were enrolled. Mean age was 76 years and 40.3% were female. Fifty-four percent started treatment with palliative intent. Eighty-one (23.1%) patients died. GAM did not improve QOL (global QOL of 4.4 points [95% CI, 0.9 to 8.0] favoring the control arm). There was also no difference in survival, change in treatment plan, unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, and treatment toxicity between groups. CONCLUSION GAM did not improve QOL. Most intervention group participants received GA on or after treatment initiation per patient request. Considering recent completed trials, GA may have benefit if completed before treatment selection. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected our QOL outcome and intervention delivery for some participants.
Clinical Benefit of First-Line Programmed Death-1 Antibody Plus Chemotherapy in Low Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1–Expressing Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Post Hoc Analysis of JUPITER-06 and Meta-Analysis
Authors: Hao-Xiang Wu, Yi-Qian Pan, Ye He, Zi-Xian Wang, Wen-Long Guan, Yan-Xing Chen, Yi-Chen Yao, Ning-Yi Shao, Rui-Hua Xu, Feng Wang
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab or nivolumab plus chemotherapy was approved as a first-line treatment for high programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–expressing esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) by the European Medicines Agency, whereas the US Food and Drug Administration approved this regimen regardless of PD-L1 expression. The superiority of programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibody plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone in patients with low PD-L1–expressing ESCC remains debatable. METHODS Post hoc analysis of the Chinese JUPITER-06 study focusing on efficacy stratified by PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS; using JS311 antibody) was conducted. Electronic databases were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials for meta-analysis. Study-level pooled analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival and progression-free survival and odds ratios for objective response rate according to PD-L1 expression were performed. RESULTS The post hoc analysis of JUPITER-06 showed more prominent clinical benefit with PD-1 antibody plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone in both the high and low PD-L1–expressing subgroups. Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, and two PD-L1 expression scoring criteria, TPS (≥ 1%/&lt; 1%) and combined positive score (CPS, ≥ 10/&lt; 10), were analyzed. Significant overall survival benefit by adding PD-1 antibody to chemotherapy was observed in both the TPS &lt; 1% (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97) and CPS &lt; 10 (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89) subgroups. Similarly, significantly prolonged progression-free survival was observed in both the TPS &lt; 1% (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.86) and CPS &lt; 10 (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.84) subgroups. In addition, the objective response rate of the TPS &lt; 1% subgroup was significantly improved (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.29). In all high PD-L1–expressing subgroups, the pooled benefit of PD-1 antibody plus chemotherapy was significantly better than that of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION This study provided novel evidence supporting the superiority of PD-1 antibody plus chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced ESCC with low PD-L1 expression. Further studies of predictive biomarkers are warranted.